Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War/Archive 13

Requested move 25 October 2020
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict → 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War – It is clearly a war at this point. 80.221.244.5 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) 


 * Move to Second Nagorno-Karabakh war: I would also prefer this name. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Can't really call it border clashes when thousands are dead and a large amount of territory has been forcibly seized. It's a full-scale war, and the title should reflect that. Thereppy (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: renaming to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War or a similar alternative. I'm seeing reliable sources describing the events as war in places like the NYTimes, South China Morning Post, and Forbes. Article title should reflect the reality of the situation. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: As this is a full war its a best time to rename into this. Though I still would like to called it the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it isn't an official name, so "War" shouldn't be capitilized here. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. I support renaming it to Second Nagorno-Karabakh war or 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  18:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please wait a couple weeks, until the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war term is established in the media.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rescue teams work at a site hit by a rocket during fighting over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, in the city of Ganja, Azerbaijan, early Oct. 17, 2020.png

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020
PKK mercenary's involvement should be added to the Units involved section.

Under Casualties, equipment losses and infrastructure damage and Allegations of third-party involvement sections should be updated with the below text PKK terrorists are fighting side by side with the Armenian army to defend their illegal occupation of Upper Karabakh, also known as Nagorno-Karabakh, a captured Armenian soldier confessed on Friday, according to Azerbaijani security sources. Albert Mikaelyan, captured by the Azerbaijani army during operations to liberate its occupied territories, said he is originally from northwestern Armenia's Sirak province but was deployed to Upper Karabakh for his mandatory military service, according to the Azerbaijani sources, who asked not to be named due to restrictions on speaking to the media.

Source 1:https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2020/10/24/captured-armenian-soldier-confesses-deployment-of-pkk-terrorists-to-yerevan-occpied-upper-karabakh Source 2:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6rjCuhY1BE

Also, the involvement of childer in the war by Armenians should be mentioned.

Source 1: https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/armenia-uses-child-soldiers-in-occupied-nagorno-karabakh-commits-war-crimes-azerbaijan Source 2: https://twitter.com/HikmetHajiyev/status/1320062999453929474 Azehistorian (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been addressed already further up the page here. Without proper sources, none of this is appropriate for the article. Eik Corell (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2020 (2)
In the "International reactions" section, Minorities abroad, Azerbaijanis, in the line 7, the word "Iranian Azerbaijanis" is falsely directed to topic "Iranian in United Kingdoms". please correct it.Moz83 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Moz83 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 20:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , why? Iranian Azerbaijanis are considered Iranians., may you comment on the issue? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's basically no information at Iranians in the United Kingdom that's relevant other than a half-sentence saying that there's many Iranian Azerbaijanis in the UK. I'd say that it's a case of overlinking. signed,Rosguill talk 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"between Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, and the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh, supported by Armenia" should be changed
The word supported does not have the same meaning in this same sentence regarding Armenia and Turkey. Artsakh has handed over all of its foreign affairs issues to Armenia. Artsakh has only foreign relationships to Armenia. Armenia does not just support Artsakh, it is its voice and its will in the negotiations with Azerbaijan. We can say "Turkey supports Azerbaijan", but the relationship of Armenia and Artsakh is much deeper. Eurasianet, The Independent, the book "Genocide and Human Rights" by Mark Lattimer, at least 34 Papers and many other sources label the relationship right away as "Armenian protectorate". The current wording is misleading and does not reflect the actual reality.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Support of Armenia to Artsakh isn't the same as support of Turkey to Azerbaijan. Armenia basically treats Artsakh as its province. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  17:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose You want it or not, Artsakh is unrecognised independent country like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and many others with its own Government, Army and President. Other claims are useless. Armenia presents the rights of Artsakh people, because Azerbaijan refuses to negotiate with the people of Artsakh. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument. Protectorates have their own presidents, except they don't interact with foreign countries, they outsource it.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are facts, not arguments. And Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Scale of Turkish support to Azerbaijan is nowhere near the support of Armenia to Artsakh. Armenia treats Artsakh as its province. Armenia is a direct belligerent, Turkey isn't. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib)  19:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can have a look at Background to see scale of Turkish support to Azerbaijan. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Turkey's assistance here is limited to arms and diplomatic support. See it as Russia's support to Armenia in the 2016 clashes. To compare it with the relation of Armenia and Artsakh is ridiculous. For God's sake, Armenian MoD makes most of the statements in the conflict in the name of Artsakh. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

could you clarify what changes do you want to make? in your initial comment, you go into a discussion about the depth of the relationship without mentioning where you want to go with this --Sataralynd (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I expected some cooperation instead of being bombarded by non-arguments. Luckily, CuriousGolden wrote the right point. I am happy. --Geysirhead (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it makes any different whether you say support or not. I know what you mean that Armenia support is deeper than Turkey, but support is support, it doesn't matter in what level. The fact that Turkey has provided Syrian mercenaries, drones, F-16 (pictured from satellite) and other arms is actually a big support and in words of Erdogen they are in support of them. News reports also state 1200 Turkish troops were just sent to Azerbaijan. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is link to article stating 1200 Turkish troops sent to Azerbaijan. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I would even say that the article itself should be renamed to Azerbaijan Offensive not because I think so, but because Thomas de Waal and Laurence Broers, the two leading experts on this 30 year old conflict think so. I suggest we rename the article 2020 Azerbaijan offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh--Sataralynd (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I second Expertwikiguy's statement. Support is a broad term. Artsakh is a de-facto independent state, but since it is not recognized, it needs to be represented by Armenia. Artsakh did not so much "hand over all of its foreign affairs issues to Armenia" as it does not have a choice to (by its very nature). It is not true that Armenia treats Artsakh like one of its provinces (example: there is a separate visa to travel to Artsakh, last I checked). Armenia does not claim it as part of its integral territory either. Armenia's support is different from Turkey's support, but support is support.— [ kentron hayastan ]  01:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. To address @CuriousGolden that Armenia treats Artsakh as its province, it does not. Provinces of Armenia do not have constitutions, do not have parliaments, do not have laws and regulations and government and budget and so on. Province/s (Marz) of Armenia are regulated by various laws, including this[Legal acts, RA President’s decrees № NH-728, On State Government in the Marzes (regions) of the RA (only in Armenian) Enacted: 06.05.1997 True: 20.05.1997]. On the other hand, no regulations exist in Armenian Laws to manage Artsakh in any way. The Republic of Artsakh has its own parliament, its own constitution, its own budget, and so on. @Solavirum, Foreign countries might avoid entering direct discussion with Artsakh from fear of committing acts that would indirectly recognize it as a country. So the international voice for Artsakh has become Armenia. MarioLemieux999 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree. Azerbaijan uses Kamikaze Drones produced by Israel's state company. So let's write Azerbaijan, which is supported by Israel. Let's not be content with this and add all the weapon suppliers and the countries that give political support to the war articles in wikipedia to the beginning of the article. Support for Azerbaijan is commercial and political. Phrases such as in Syria, Turkey, supported by the extremely wrong.T his is stupid. If the Turkish Armed Forces fought in the ranks of Azerbaijan, then you can write.--45.135.206.220 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny how these kids try to show themselves as an expert and pushing their own views like fact. In international relations since when supplying ammunition or weapons considered as a support? Russian supply to Armenia may be considered as they are part of one alliance group and Armenia gets them free of charge. However, Azerbaijan buys these weapons ! It is like saying Saudi Arabia supports every country that it sells oil to them. Why we are talkin nonsense here? Putin has openly supported Territorial Integrity of Azerbaijan republic even doesn't support Armenia for its illegal actions in Karabakh. Regarding to Syrian fighters, since when wikipedia started to refer some news papers that publishes articles of corrupted authors. I remember many times I tried to write something in wikipedia by referring some newspapers but it got rejected because source considered not be independent as author might be bias. Anyway, if you really tryin to publish an article that reflects all truth, please at least don't refer to FRANCE 24. If you refer to FRANCE 24 as independent source then please also refer to TRT WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Turkey sends 1,200 special squad to Azerbaijan
There are various reports of this that Turkey has sent 1,200 special squad force to Azerbaijan. Where is the best place to add this? Source 1 - aysor.com Source 2 - Armenpress.com Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of these reports originate from a company called WarGonzo who is notorious for lying/posting bias/completely making things up. Therefore, I don't think anything about this should be included in the article. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 06:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Source? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose if we're going to add Armenian state propaganda here let's not forget that you guys deleted PKK/YPG involvement just because they were voiced from Baku and Ankara. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have removed it from Background per discussion, but not from Armenian diaspora fighters and Kurdish militias section. This may be added to Turkey and Syrian National Army section. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. As it still has no material evidence whatsoever. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  09:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * please provide source of your claim that "WarGonzo is notorious for lying." In addition, I do see the point that this info has only come from one source so far, regardless several publications have reported it, and the job of Wikipedia is to state facts based on sources from credible publications. If there are any sources from Azerbaijan denying that this has happened, we can add. So far I do not think that Azerbaijan or Turkey have denied this. We can also add that the news is only based on once source. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * can you please show some examples of him lying/posting bias/making things up? From what I see he simply posts videos or other content from the frontlines. I would say that he does have a somewhat pro-Armenian perspective however he is an independent journalist not beholden to the Azeri or Armenian governments which makes him better than most of the other sources we have. In relation to the special squad, this remains a rumor however covert action is not an unknown phenomenon in warfare --LOLCaatz (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

About the news that mentions Armenian Azerbaijanis
Can someone add that: here. There's a mention about warning that keep away from military installations.--Ahmetlii (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Karabakh Records on ceasefire violations - reliable?
I ask because this claim has been released regarding the latest ceasefire: https://twitter.com/KarabakhRecords/status/1320579828605722628. I notice that Karabakh Records is referenced once already in the Casualties article. --LOLCaatz (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:TWITTER; no, it's not a reliable source. I'm refraining from using social media sources. --Ahmetlii (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Just to be clear - twitter isn't a reliable source under any circumstance? --LOLCaatz (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, at least if tweet is about the person and not about another person (Wikipedia rules mentioned them on WP:TWITTER specifically). However, I prefer to change them as soon as possible with news sources because of possible hijackings, fake accounts, etc. (Here is a recent incident about it.)--Ahmetlii (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable! What has been written by KR is the truth. The original post from the Azeri MoD has been deleted as you can check via Twaku : (the original deleted post);  (the new one); and you can double check here . The problem is not Twitter itself, but the Azeri MoD lies and propaganda on it. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Karabakh Records is an organization created within the Presidential Administration of Armenia, and WP:TWITTER. Also,, check out WP:RGW before making such uncivil comments. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Nevertheless, the sequence of events described by that post did happen. Is there a better way to verify this? If Azeri are really planning to break every ceasefire (and while this sequence of events does not prove it, it does imply it heavily), this has significant implications that would be relevant to the article. --LOLCaatz (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, both sides accuse each other of breaking the ceasefire but independent sources aren't able to confirm one party's allegations. Even BBC Russian Service who has many correspondents in the area isn't able to. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Map discussion
Pinging users that seem to be involved in map edits:

Please move map discussion to a more appropriate space, such as on the file's discussion page. The article's talk page should be used for discussing specific edits on the article, not on changes to files within the article itself. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I Agree. People have been using this page as a bus depot for every thing slightly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia. We've got separate talk pages for separate topics, and a whole different project for free images. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  14:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm Agree too -Tigran Ovanyan (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What is your source of map info, how we can trust? Could you add refferences from where you did you get ? 999masks (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Could we be more explicit about the connection of Turkey's Involvement with the Armenian Genocide
Turkey's involvement in this conflict is well established, including by Azerbaijan itself (source). I think we need to make the connection between the unrecognized Armenian Genocide by Turkey and the impact of Turkish involvement in this conflict on the Armenian side clear. Therefore, I ask to change the following sentence in the Background section from:


 * Turkey's high visibility role in the conflict has complicated it by raising the matter of the 1.5 million Armenians who died in the deportations, forced marches, and massacres by its Ottoman predecessors initiated in 1915.

to


 * '''Turkey's high visibility role in the conflict and its support to Azerbaijan has been perceived by Armenians as a continuation of the Armenian Genocide where 1.5 million Armenians died due to massacres, deportations and forced marches, especially given Turkey's denial of the Genocide. video source min 2:30 to 2:55 and source and source--Sataralynd (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you, Sataralynd. Eurofan88 (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Turkey is a third party to the conflict. Its overall contribution is debated and the conflict did not arise because of Turkey, it merely offers support to one party. Even if Turkish support is extensive, unless Turkey supports Azerbaijan because of its denial of Armenian Genocide, spending 8% of the background (character countwise) for how Turkish involvement is perceived by Armenians casts a shadow of neutrality.
 * Proposal: The new sentence is to be removed to either one of the following sections:
 * 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
 * 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
 * 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
 * 2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
 * The sentence in the background will be weakened to Turkey's high visibility role in the conflict and its support to Azerbaijan has been perceived by Armenians as a continuation of the Armenian Genocide.
 * Reasoning
 * The conflict is not with Turkey. Therefore, information regarding Turkey should be more more focused. Overall, 20% of the whole background text, character countwise, is about Turkey with 8% about Armenian Genocide.
 * The background is overall skewed into Armenian narrative. We have a statement from Armenian PM but not from Azerbaijani PM. We also have a detailed statement about how Armenians perceive operations of Azerbaijan and Turkish involvement, yet we do not have any comparable statement about how Armenian presence is perceived by Azerbaijanis.
 * Armenian Genocide is not directly related to the current conflict. It is more about sentiments. Ottomans did not rule over Nagorno Karabakh so they could not have caused the current population dynamics.
 * Yet, Armenian Genocide is not unrelated. Therefore it needs to be mentioned in the background, yet with a more restricted manner. My proposal includes keeping of the internal link the genocide page so readers can reach it easily if they choose to.
 * Finally, since there is a propaganda war going on, emphasising on past great albeit unrelated tragedies might cause WP:NPOV issues, especially given that Khojali Massacre, directly related to the ongoing crisis did not get a notable mention in the background section.
 * Overall, I strongly urge the editors to nudge the background section into balance by only keeping essential information and moving the rest to the relevant subsections. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are sources supporting all the claims in the section. If you have a counter claim, you need to provide sources. Until that is done the section must remain as is. Khojali is not mentioned in the Background section, but so is Baku and Sumgait pograms which predate it.--Sataralynd (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not about WP:RS. I am not even suggesting removal of any content. I am suggesting to distribute some of the content. For example, you don't even need any source about details of Armenian Genocide, it is common knowledge. But does the reader need to know the details of the genocide in the background section of an ongoing conflict? There are surely more suitable places for details of Armenian Genocide on this article and reader who want to know more about them can simply click the internal link.
 * Specific to pogroms you mentioned, they are no longer related to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Khojaly or Ivanyan, on the other hand, is within the current region of conflict. Even then, there is no need to mention Khojaly but if we have enough space to be elaborate about an unrelated event, we surely must have some space for relevant events.
 * I feel like I have to stress this, It is not about the sources. Before the edits discussed here, this was quite alright. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is an international lie: If there had been a genocide really, European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) would have punished Perincek who said "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LIE". The decision of ECtHR is not related with "freedom of speech": One CANNOT say "The Holocaust is an INTERNATIONAL LIE" in Europe. The Holocaust HAPPENED. No freedom of speech to declare "The Holocaust is an INTERNATIONAL LIE". One CAN say "Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE" in Europe. The "Armenian Genocide" did NOT happened. Again: Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE. European Court of Human Rights; Case of PERİNÇEK v. SWITZERLAND; ApplicationNo 27510/08 Armenian Genocide is an INTERNATIONAL LIE Fullscaledx (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The ECtHR does not decide whether the Armenian Genocide happened, researchers do, and they have by and large determined that it definitely did happen.Stavd3 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is also a misinterpretation of source material, the ECtHR does not say that the genocide was a lie, they said Switzerland's case against Doğu Perinçek wasn't worth conviction because of free speech not that because what he said was true. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 13:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just embarrassing, there is clear academic consensus that the Armenian Genocide happened, that ruling of the ECHR was about freedom of expression, not about the existence of the Armenian Genocide, please refrain from pushing Turkish Government propaganda. Jujuy88 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Fullscaledx Wikipedia does not allow original research. It reflects the overall consensus and the current consensus is that Armenian Genocide indeed happened. If the consensus is to change, Wikipedia would follow but until that time, here is not the correct place to discuss it. 131.111.5.153 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat what I said above. The inclusion is supported by ample third party sources. It is not the opinion of anybody on this thread. If you have any sources that support a counterclaim please include it here--Sataralynd (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Welp, our friend here has been indefinitely blocked from editing. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of Azerbaijan by the Armenia
There is a lot of emphasis in the article that Armenians lived in the mountainous garabagh in the past. It is extremely incomplete that only the other Azerbaijani regions connecting the corridor were annexed by Armenia. deliberate disinformation is being created.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Azerbaijan_by_the_Armenia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_invasion_of_Azerbaijan

??--45.135.206.220 (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * what --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh is a de facto Armenian protectorate
Dear Artsakh was actually never an independent state. It is dependent on Armenia, although Armenia does not recognize it, Pashinian says that Armenia is a "guarantor" of its security. Can you, please, provide me with any sources about Artsakh's independence? Can you prove me that Artsakh is not in a position of a protectorate? Sincerely, --Geysirhead (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (this "suzerainty" can be economically, militarily, or anything else) Also, when looking to the dictionary, it definitely can be a protectorate as de facto. Denmark is a good example. If you're still having questions, I can answer more and give better examples. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We need third party sourcing to label it a protectorate. Full stop. Anything less is synthesis. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, ... --Geysirhead (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Google for "Armenian protectorate" link--Geysirhead (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, step one passed. So, can a protectorate be de facto without being de jure? Can country A be a protectorate of country B without country B saying so? --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (My point being, is it possible for a de facto protectorate to even exist? It seems like something that, geopolitically, requires an affirmative statement.) --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What should one answer to such a question? Google for "de facto protectorate"!--Geysirhead (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be. From the definition of protectorate on Wikipedia: "A protectorate, in its inception adopted by modern international law, is a dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy and some independence while still recognizing the suzerainty of a greater sovereign state."
 * , that's actually nice catch, cheers for you! --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, y'all don't have to ping, I'm right here. Secondly: "A protectorate... is dependent territory" First of all, is Artsakh a dependent territory? Armenia has never claimed them, and Artsakh has never repealed their declaration of independence. "has been granted local autonomy" Again, was there any agreement that Armenia would allow Artsakh autonomy? None of these sound like de facto situations. As for "de facto protectorates" that have existed in the past, I can find none more recent than World War II, when - I think we can all agree - the whole nature of the international entity of a nation state was somewhat altered. (the google search Geyhsirhead mentioned brings up Cuba-US and Egypt-UK as the most recent and pertinent examples) Now, for some counter-examples. Monaco and the Vatican City have no military of their own, no foreign policy, yet we do not label them protectorates, because they aren't. They are independent states, both by their own reckoning but also by international reckoning. My point is: Labelling Artsakh a "protectorate" is perhaps more than we should be comfortable doing, and, ultimately, IMO, not germane to this article. What is absolutely indisputable: Artsakh declared independence; Azerbaijan and Armenia do not recognize it; all three parties are engaged in military conflict. What is apparently not indisputable: The relationship between Armenia and Artsakh. Rather than focus on the waffly bit, let's focus on the more important, objective bits. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oop, I was slightly wrong - that google search also suggests modern Israel is a protectorate of the United States. I don't imagine that would go over well over at Talk:Israel. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Golbez, "Artsakh declared independence" is wrong. NKAO declared independence. Wikipedia is not for original research, especially, if it is biased research with the goal to prevent readers from understanding the actual truth in clear words. Protectorate is a clear word. Armenia does not just support Artsakh, it negotiates in its place. Pashinian negotiates about the state of "so-independent" Artsakh with Azerbaijan. If Artsakh is independent, then who is Pashinian to decide about its future? Dear Golbez, what does it change for you, if there is "protectorate" according to the sources instead of the long boring "Armenia strongly supports, protects and negotiates for Artsakh"? Does it sound like Armenia is guilty and maybe you do not agree with any Armenian guilt? Sincerely, --Geysirhead (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * oh honey. You think I'm new here and that your rhetoric will work on me. This is adorable. Yes, a government purporting to represent the NKAO and Shahumian declared independence as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which has since renamed itself Artsakh. Don't play games with me, I was doing this a decade before you even heard of Wikipedia. What does it change for me if it's labeled a protectorate? Nothing, I don't care about your weird fight. I just wanted to point out that it will have to be heavily backed up, to the point that it's not even worth doing because - and this should be obvious by now - the time and mental labor required to deal with it is detracting and distracting from the rest of the article. "maybe you do not agree with any Armenian guilt" what? --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Golbez, "I was doing this a decade before you even heard of Wikipedia." is wrong. You simply do not know, what I heard of Wikipedia a decade ago and you should not claim things, which might actually be wrong. A decade-old wikipedia account does not safely imply that the owner remained the same person. An owner swap is not impossible. Prove your experience level by behaviour! In my sentence, I used the magical word "maybe", which expresses my uncertainty about your motivation. Do you mean the unexpressed tu quoque arguments by "games"? No intention. I am just correcting reasoning mistakes, trying to find their source and "mental labor required to deal with" sounds like a pleasure to me. I love it. A protectorate does not need to be de jure. Point. Artsakh is labeled as an Armenian protectorate and treated like it by Armenia and other countries. Point. --Geysirhead (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spending half a paragraph explaining the linear nature of time, I think we're done here. My statement remains - we shouldn't print it as a protectorate just because you found two sources that say so. --Golbez (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear, Wikipedia is based on facts not personal opinions. See Opinion piece. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

, we need third-party reliable sources to label it a protectorate. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. See WP:SYN. Please do not use de facto Armenian protectorate in other articles until a consensus is achieved. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, "you found two sources that say so" is wrong. "third-party reliable sources" are already provided by mentioning the Google search for "Armenian protectorate". You can also search for "Protectorate of Armenia" or join the discussion here. But, anyway, thank you for the invitation to continue the discussion! "I don't care about your weird fight" I participate in the fight for truth and will withstand the bombardment by those non-arguments.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Armenian victory led to the emergence of Nagorno-Karabakh as an Armenian protectorate" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14751798.2014.894297 --Geysirhead (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Finally, in the case of Armenia, the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, which remains under Armenian protectorate, significantly reduces the government's political autonomy, making it especially vulnerable to Russian pressure" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-26446-8_4 --Geysirhead (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * " Azerbaijani fighters downed the craft 12 November during joint exercises between the Armenian military and forces of the region, a de facto Armenian protectorate although internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory"https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=455628--Geysirhead (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ruben Melikyan, a former human rights ombudsman of the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh who is now supporting the far-right activists, initially said his client had also been detained on weapons charges, but when Danielyan was released he said the charges were drug-related."https://eurasianet.org/several-leaders-of-armenias-far-right-detained --Geysirhead (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan."https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/armenia-azerbaijan-war-conflict-b863585.html--Geysirhead (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "All three countries canceled school for at least a week, as did the Armenian protectorate of Nagorno-Karabakh."https://www.afghanistannews.net/news/264192812/caucasus-shuts-doors-after-coronavirus-hits --Geysirhead (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Protectorate is NOT a WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for interpretation, which is what you are doing by using the term. I am surprised it is being discussed here. What should be mentioned is Republic of Artsakh as 1) that is how the people there call themselves 2) that is how the place works with its own constitution, parliament and budget. The de facto qualifier is added to to clarify to the average reader the legal status of the place--Sataralynd (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Protectorate is neutral. By female Armenian Author Yulia Antonyan "The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..."https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-armenian-intelligentsia-today-discourses-of-self-identification-and-self-perception/viewer AND by female Azerbaijani Author Shahla Sultanova "President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to" https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=164301 Protectorate is a common neutral scientific term. Full Stop. --Geysirhead (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not doing original research here and synthesizing ideas around a topic. I am referencing the policy here so that it is crystal clear
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
 * In the meantime, I would strongly advise to refrain from edits on articles or starting separate discussions, until you answer to all the concerns that were raised here--Sataralynd (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not synthesize ideas from multiple sources. I mention multiple sources, which mention the same idea. I do not do 1+1=2, I do 1=1=1=1=1. I say that a person A say 1, a person B say 1, a person C says 1, a person D say also 1 and so on. --Geysirhead (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you have used multiple sources in order to imply the use of a specific term (i.e. protectorate) that does nothing to clarify to the average reader about this topic (i.e. the present conflict). Rather, the use of the term protectorate does communicate what you believe to be true, namely an assessment, an opinion, an interpretation. I understand you think it is important, but it is squarely not in the scope of this article. Mentioning the term in this article does nothing to illuminate the topic in question to the average reader--Sataralynd (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Found this discussion due to a link in Talk:Republic of Artsakh. Echoing my statement there, "protectorate" is an ambiguous word which could have many possible meanings. I'm not sure what the usage context of this discussion in particular is, but I expect there is a better way to communicate whatever is trying to be communicated. CMD (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Protectorate is one of these high-level terms, to which some people always try to attach some emotion to in the debates. In the case of Artsakh, it is an amical protectorate.--Geysirhead (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources calling it an amical protectorate? CMD (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But, if those trouble makers are allowed to forbid any sharp term, they regard as emotional, the world ends up in Newspeak.--Geysirhead (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that says Pashinyan said "Artsakh is Armenia". If you're still thinking it's not a protectorate, please look to its definition and get a RFC if you want. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, I don't think any of this is sufficient for us to label it a protectorate as I think that status is an affirmative one, not a definitional one. No, I won't be engaging in an RfC because, as I've made clear, I don't care. --Golbez (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

2 Armenian prisoners executed
, this is a war crime that has been covered by the international media, can be placed in the infobox. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it might be, but we don't specify war crimes in the infobox. It is by definition, redundant. See Infobox military conflict. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Still not sure that this information is redundant. From the template's description: casualties suffered (including: dead, wounded, missing, captured and civilian deaths) and equipment losses. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rejection: No proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.214.227 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * bolding captured makes no difference. If it says captured, put it alongside the captured. I think one of them were identified as a civilian, and other as a soldier. You can update the numbers there, but specifying is unnecessary. Also, I hope you don't think that my objection is due to my national background. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of them being civilian was only claimed by Artsakh. BBC and Bellingcat both referred to them as combatants or people in combatant clothes. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of them was 73 years old wearing a military jacket, his status as combatant is murky. The execution of the pair is not murky at all. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

BBC link https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54645254 referred as proof but, it doesn't clearly states anything about this being war crime. It also refers to https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2020/10/15/an-execution-in-hadrut-karabakh/ which analyses the video. However, this side also doesn't clearly says that it was done by Azerbaijan army, it says " possibly special forces, and likely executed a short time later". So this can't be used as evidence because there are too many unanswered questions and too many statements such as "possibly" or "likely". 188.227.214.227 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You guys are really going to say there is no proof? Are you serious man this is real. 2 civilians and one above 70 were executed. This is 100% real. I don’t get it you need Azerbaijan to confirm it? They’ll never do it. MakeWikiReliable (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2020
The article is biased for the sake of fairness please include Ganja city, Tartar city, Mingachevir city ballistic missile and artillery attacks. 94.200.24.122 (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea   Trick  undefined  Treat  11:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Protests images in Minorities section
, how am i image spamming? The images of the Armenian protests i've added to the section were from two different locations; one in Los Angeles, one in Barcelona and the main reason for adding it was because the rallies Armenian communites held globally have been topic of international media untill this day and objectively have been more influential than Azerbaijani diaspora's protests. You've added two images from the same Azerbaijani protest in Turkey a week ago but suddenly it is "image spamming" that another one is being added to the Armenian section. Eurofan88 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you can see that those images are clipping through the references section. We can't have that. And you've also seen that I've removed the image from one of the Azerbaijani protests. but suddenly it is "image spamming" that another one is being added to the Armenian section, for Pete's sake you guys are doing the same gammy canvassing all over again; I'm not a kindergartener to discuss such stuff. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  12:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , i can see why you've removed one of the two images from the same protest in Turkey and i hope you understand that we aren't trying to equalize the images' representation here. The reference clipping has to do with your device's monitor size, so if anybody else don't mind i'll add back the Barcelona protest image in horizontal line. Both images are relevant for this section. Thank you. Eurofan88 (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

, you remove photos from the article, calling them "redundant", and compare these users who uploaded the pics as "from kindergarten". But at the same time, within 12 hours you have added 3 photos of Aliyev,, , making this page to look like Ilham Aliyev's personal page. You always remind people to be polite and "good faith". However, you need to remind it yourself, too. You remove information without discussion and refuse to discuss it in talk pages, instead you revert the edits and explain your personal position in the summary, thinking that your position is the objective one. This is not a "kindergarten". Please be polite to other users and keep Wikipedia's voice neutral. If you can't control your biased or Azerbaijani side, so please take a break from editing until you become neutral again. We will be waiting. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed you ask people to be polite (which is admirable) but then seeing your article editing comment "don't spam everywhere" addressed to   frankly puts me in cognitive dissonance, sorry. Reddit/facebook abbreviations like "LMAO (Laughing My Ass Off)" are not nice, either. Politeness rules are not to be used unilaterally, I hope everybody agrees with this. Best regards Armatura (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , my discussion was with Eurofan, not you. So, if you have a problem with reading my reply, let me explain it again. The images in question were clipping through parts of the article that should never clip through. If not me, others would have removed it. suddenly it is "image spamming" that another one is being added to the Armenian section is in itself a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This page receives viewers numbering in multiple digits. Such things aren't acceptable. If someone, just like you, claim double standards, I'm going to reply in the same way. Do you really think I'm new to these stuff? I know the guidelines, I know what I've been doing. And accusing other users of taking sides aren't productive either. If I had taken someone's side here, I wouldn't add statements from Armenia. My work is simply to avoid this page from becoming a pro-Armenian newsletter. Also, Aliyev's images have 100% free license, and we don't have better images to replace them. If you are not going to avoid such unwanted discussions and rhetoric, as you put it, users can take some time until their emotions don't take control. I've been reported by such users before, even at this page, with no success in having me get blocked. You can do the same. You have the liberty to do so. In the meanwhile,, if someone likes you starts making sarcastic comments like "What is next?" and constantly avoid WP:CONSENSUS, don't expect something greater than that. Feel free to rejoin if you think you can make constructive edits for once. Every one has temper, and losing time on unproductive stuff are annoying to say the least. Read WP:CIVIL thoroughly and then critise other users. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, once again, I invite you to take a break from editing for some period of time. We will surely be waiting for you here. I have no doubt that you know all the guidelines. But knowledge of the rules and policies is not enough, you also need to follow them. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , go ahead, and invite. But I'm not going to stop editing until I'm assured that the POV-pushing in the article will end. In the meantime, take a time to understand that accusing others of being biased or ask someone to control their control Azerbaijani side (what ever that means) isn't much a good thing to tell someone. If you are going to poke someone, you might get poked back (and possibly, in a much harder way). --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  20:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * :) Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

War Crime Section Suspiciously not including Ganja Attack
I found it a bit strange why War Crime section doesn't talk about Ganja attach? Isn't that war crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Links :

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/17/13-killed-in-gan https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54488386 https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201017-missiles-strike-residential-areas-in-azerbaijan-after-shelling-of-armenia-separatist-capital

Isn't this enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, first there is no proof/evidence that the Armenian army deliberately targeted those exact residential buildings in Ganja. If we had evidence, then absolutely! But there is no evidence. Scud ballistic missiles are notoriously inaccurate from that range and when fired into a huge city like that, civilians may die, babies may die, but we can't proof the intent of the Armenians was for that to happen as they stated they were targeting military installations. Reckless? Sure, but this was retaliation for Stepanakert being bombed with cluster bombs by the Azeris. That too was reckless and provocative. What we can proof is a war crime are two Armenian PoW's being executed after capture and captured taped on video for all to see. We have evidence for that despicable war crime, thanks to the sadistic soldiers who filmed it.User178198273998166172 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you send rocket to to city which populated with 500,000 civilians, you consider that it is not deliberate attack? Why then you consider that Azerbaijan deliberately shell Khankendi?188.227.214.227 (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The War Crimes section is completely biased for the Armenian side, there's nothing about war crimes of the Armenian side (which there are several of). I'll try to expand it to have Armenian war crimes if no one else does. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

<b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) Unfortunately Wikipedia is for those who shouting more and loud. It is clear that the missle hit Ganja was war crime. We need add this part. Could you please help me to prepare the content? 188.227.214.227 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * see 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks if you want proof. I will document them on Azerbaijani side as well as like I did before on Armenian side. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , third-party Twitter sources have all shared videos of Armenians killing an Azerbaijani POW with a rifle's stock, mutilating an Azerbaijani soldier's body, vandalizing the bodies of many Azerbaijani killed soldiers, and wearing Azerbaijani uniforms (which itself, is also a war crime). But sadly, my Russian is limited and don't know any Armenian. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahmetlii (talk Yes please do it and thank you very much!

is there any article or analysys f this video?

With all due respect sir you can not prove that Armenians did anything to Azerbaijani POWs or wore Azerbaijani uniforms. A third party would be something like the BBC not Heydar’s little son MakeWikiReliable (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not use websites like a frankly biased portal which can be simply understandable from its name. But unfortunately, we have not enough choice about resources; so we have to use them eventually for making the page unbiased although they provide fake cites or don't provide at all. I'm trying to make wiki reliable and unbiased as soon as possible, and I assume that you will also be able to reliable and unbiased. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii I’m completely with you but Britain tends to be more pro-Azerbaijan and the fact that BBC posted the article it kind of changes things. Of course again the resources are limited so I don’t know... MakeWikiReliable (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

MakeWikiReliable (talk) please try engage into health discussion and not judge users. Moreover, according WP:MBFC BBC is a reliable source to refer. 149.126.119.233 (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

At no point in the discussion did I ever try to judge a user. Judging a dictator yes, the user no. Please read carefully before accusing me of judging users. MakeWikiReliable (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sepah commander
Sepah's commander Mohammad Pakpour, visited the Khodaafarin Bridges and added: "The liberation of the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh has been our demand from the beginning and we are happy that this has happened." Do you think we could add these anywhere, or it is important? Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, since is a relevant Iranian Commander and Iranian role is a important one for Geographical and Geopolitical reasons. That could de added but the part of "we are happy" could be changed to "Iranian official aproval" since is more encyclopedic.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a BBC source on Iran deploying additional military equipment and soldiers on its border with Azerbaijan. Might be a useful addition. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  14:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur (talk) and Mr.User200 (talk) thanks for contribution to Wikipedia. Please make sure that the content properly written and approved by all parties (wikipedia community). The topic you are referring is very sensitive and we don't want to end up with the information that states Iran support to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Iran's current deployment to Northern provinces is port relieving pressure in the provinces that Azerbaijanians live and there were multiple cases where Armenians shelled nearby Iranian towns. Hence, please make sure you provide clear picture of the event instead creating controversy. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Jalal Harutyunyan heavily wounded possibly KIA
According to Armenian sources Sputnik Armenia Jalal Harutyunyan is wounded(most likely heavily or KIA since he is replaced and has been removed from his position) 80.76.168.114 (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please respect WP:BLP and don’t say he has been killed without any sources to back it up. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What it has to do with respect? I'm stating potential reasons for him being replaced, Azerbaijani sources claim he has been killed but I'm only using Armenian source to keep it less biased, the whole article is pretty much only Armenian sources and heavily biased toward Armenian narrative so i would ask WikiModerators to also respect Azerbiajani side and at least keep some balance since its Wikipedia not Armenipedia80.76.168.114 (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay calm down no one said its Armenipedia. The Armenian side doesn’t even say he is heavily injured, they say it’s very light and he will recover soon. And to respect Azerbaijani side means to respect a fascist regime quite honestly. But that’s not the point. There is 0 evidence to back up the fact that he is dead. Very lightly injured. MakeWikiReliable (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fascist side? Of course what else to say when Robert Kocharyan said that Azerbaijanis and Armenian DNA's are completely different and we can not live together, when Serj Sargysan openly confessed to Khoajly genocide we are called Nazis? I guess Njdeh statue hovering over Yerevan portrays different picture! If he is lightly wounded why is he dismissed? "Very lightly Injured" means he should be able to recover in couple of days yet he is dismissed i guess Armenian Propaganda still thinks the LOC is in Fizuli well ill leave it at that 80.76.168.114 (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sputnik is not WP:RS, but BBC Russian has stated that he was wounded. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  09:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Already included to infobox. Beshogur (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also could you please add "at least 17 servicemen have been captured" source is ArmenianReport but they are quoting Armenian MoD https://www.armenianreport.com/ru/pubs/262868/ 80.76.168.114 (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes Azerbaijan is the fascist side and don’t forget how the war started because of Azerbaijan’s pogroms against Armenians. No one calls the death of 160 civilians a genocide. That’s absurd. Plus your first president admits that Azerbaijanis did Khojaly as Coupe d’etat. Jalal Hovhannisyan came up with a statement today and commented all the news articles talking about his death. Another Azerbaijani lie dismissed. MakeWikiReliable (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , does this violate any guidelines: "Yes Azerbaijan is the fascist side and don’t forget how the war started because of Azerbaijan’s pogroms against Armenians". Also, sorry for too much tagging, but you're one of the most active admins on the topic. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stick to discussing the article and not which side is fascist or what not. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2020 (2)
On October 19, Armenia's human rights defender reported about another war crime committed by the Azerbaijani side where they have beheaded an Armenian soldier, posted the picture on social media and called his brother to taunt him.[216][217][unreliable source?]

This sentence must be deleted as reference is not reliable and information is part of propaganda war. 149.126.119.233 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea   Trick  undefined  Treat  05:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Asartea  Trick  undefined  Treat  this is what is reported. Information is already published in article without proper source or reference. Could you please check and delete it? Mirhasanov (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Russia is arms suppliers to both Azerbaijan and Armenia
"Russia set to continue arms supplies to Azerbaijan and Armenia — official" source: https://tass.com/defense/868312 https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/15/will-russian-arms-sales-survive-the-azeri-armenian-conflict/

It should be mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.129.22 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"from they described as occupied territories of Azerbaijan"
, UN is calling these areas occupied territories. This is not NPOV, just fancy words in my opinions. Beshogur (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Split proposals
I've noticed a split banner at the top of the page but no split discussions. I would propose the following: Juxlos (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Timeline of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (section is extremely long, and quite high detail)
 * Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (already there)
 * International reaction to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to allow more detailed writing on Russian, Turkish, Iranian, French, and American reactions.
 * Potentially Turkish involvement in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict if it gets more documented and/or large-scale.
 * Drone warfare in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Foreign Policy magazine has an in depth article about it, plus the Small Wars Journal. Many less in-depth writeups about drones specifically in other sources.)
 * We already have a timeline article here, but the rest seem productive to me. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 12:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm the top editor on the timeline page, and I would like to see further participation in that page. The existence of the timeline within the main article is counterproductive, and stretches the article to extreme lengths. If this gains enough consensus I will remove the timeline from the main article and redirect to the timeline article. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * timeline page exists. I've split ballistic missile attacks on Ganja, Battle of Hadrut, and the southern border offensive. 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert was also split by others., the international reactions page was deleted with a discussion. I agree that someone should cut the timeline section of the article. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  12:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support a split about drone warfare. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On the timeline maybe we could cut a lot of it by instead of doing it daily we could do it weekly or by major events? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 13:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I support removing the conflict timeline from the main article, since a separate timeline article already exists. TWFcode (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per current consensus I have removed the timeline from the article, linked to the separate timeline article, and added a gallery depicting military engagements and sites of said engagements.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we agreed on removing the timeline from the article. It removes too much information that the article must cover. We just need it to be a running prose than a list of events. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TOOLONG, my removal of the timeline was justified. If you wish to add your own summary later, or contribute to the new timeline article which can be found here, please do so. I am once again removing the timeline from the main article, I hope that you properly interpret the policies surrounding this split and the size of the article correctly now. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , per WP:SS articles should not duplicate content that is covered more completely in other articles. While it is appropriate to include a summary of the content in the other article (the timeline article), that summary should be written brand new. The best thing to do at this point in my opinion is remove the timeline section and link it to the other article, after which time you and other editors may freely build up a concise summary of the timeline - with only the most major events/days listed here. As TheEpicGhosty brought up already, the article must be split per WP:TOOLONG, and since the timeline is the largest part and already has its own page, it makes much more sense to go ahead and remove it. I'll note that even on a modern computer and good internet connection the page after TEG's removal loads about 8-10 seconds faster for me than the one with the timeline still in it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the timeline in a separate article, and the creation of an international reactions article so it can be covered in more depth. I think waiting would be the best course of action for potential articles about drone warfare and Turkish involvement, so we aren't TOOSOON. User:Heyoostorm_talk! 13:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Could we be more explicit about the Syrian Mercenaries?
In the intro under section Allegations of third-party involvement could we be more explicit about evidence on the involvement of Syrian mercenaries in Azerbaijan and the numbers. Here are three different sources providing evidence: France24, The Independent, and Guardian. SOHR reports the latest number to be at 2000 mercenaries as of 18 October. Note that we have a section about Kurdish fighters on the Armenian side, but up until now, I am yet to find any evidence to be presented. It would be reasonable to delete that section, but will leave that for another day

The current intro talks about context, allegations, etc. which don't provide a clear picture to the average reader. Mentioning the number is important here as well (not only in the side box) as it gives an understanding of scale of involvement. I suggest the intro to be entirely rewritten as follows:

'''Independent media outlets reported evidence of Syrian Mercenaries recruited in Syria by Turkey to fight alongside the Azerbaijan army in Nagorno Karabakh. As of 18 October, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that 2000 mercenaries were recruited in Syria by Turkey and transferred to fight in Nagorno Karabakh'''. --Sataralynd (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with fixing statements. Because of WP:DECISION, this should be nice (like alleged section on Libya Civil War (2011)): France24, The Independent, and The Guardian reported that Syrian mercenaries recruited in Syria by Turkey to fight alongside the Azerbaijan army in Nagorno-Karabakh. As of 18 October, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that 2000 mercenaries were recruited in Syria by Turkey and transferred to fight in Nagorno Karabakh. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeap, we shouldn't compile them under "independent media outlets", seems like nitpicking. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  09:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and thanks. However, please keep the word "evidence" as per my original wording. The intention of the edit is to highlight that there has been evidence, and not just reports. So here is how the wording should be

'''France24, The Independent, and The Guardian reported evidence of Syrian mercenaries recruited in Syria by Turkey to fight alongside the Azerbaijan army in Nagorno Karabakh. As of 18 October, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that 2000 mercenaries were recruited in Syria by Turkey and transferred to fight in Nagorno Karabakh''' could I ask you to make the edit? Thank you all,--Sataralynd (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the first part is done. But any ref on SOHR's estimate? And The Guardian link is dead. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  14:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks. Here is the guardian link. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights itself reported on the 2000 mercenaries. They have no affiliation with Armenia or Azerbaijan and I have no reason to distrust them. Here is also previous reporting on same topic where the numbers are aligned.--Sataralynd (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks Armatura (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally think if we refer news links as a source then please write about PKK mercenaries in Armenia. https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/ https://www.aa.com.tr/en/azerbaijan-front-line/armenia-making-pkk-terrorists-wear-azerbaijani-uniforms/2018969.

Regarding articles in The Guardian or Independent they can't be considered as reference. If you would read the article the author talks about some unknown phone conversation they had, where person on other side claims to be recruited. Any one can make this kind of cheap war propaganda. Hence, the fact that Syrian mercenaries fight in Azerbaijani side is not proved. Even Russia andFrance first claimed it but was not able to provide prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.50.47 (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please start another thread about PKK, but also check previous ones as the topic has been belaboured here (in my view). As for the Syrian mercenaries, there are three different sources that only I provided above. These are 3 separate media outlets with high credibility on the international scene (nothing to do with NK btw). Do you seriously think they will be doing Armenia's cheap propaganda? Also, typically if someone is a terrorist going about their terrorism, they don't mention their name when talking on the phone to their fellow terrorist. Unless you provide a third party thorough analysis exposing the unreliability of the 3 different sources and their provided evidence, the wording stays in--Sataralynd (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Let me explain then:

Let's first start with The Guardian, you are the most probably referring to this link. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/02/syrian-recruit-describes-role-of-foreign-fighters-in-nagorno-karabakh).

The article refers to "Mustafa Khalid" which is fake name of the guy who was interviewed via phone. You can call the Guardian act like Syrian and tell them whatever you want. This doesn't makes things obvious. In article he states that "Syrians posted to Nagorno-Karabakh appear be wearing the blue uniforms that are standard issue to Azerbaijani border guards". In Azerbaijan Army there is no "blue uniforms", Azerbaijan Border Guard wears "green" uniforms and you just need to google it to find the colour. So far we saw pictures where some Armenian soldiers wears Azerbaijan board duart uniform. Considering that the article is based on some phone conversation which can be easily mimicked, this sources can't be reliable source and reference for Wikipedia.!

Secondly, The Independent you are probably referring to this link (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/armenia-azerbaijan-syria-war-fighting-mercenary-russia-b912446.html). It again refers some informations send by mobile phone and not verified and Whatsapp voice. Do you think that people who are ready to fight for 1200$ in Azerbaijan will reject some 2000$ offered them to tell lies to journalists? Anyway, the article also mentions Armenia recruiting people from Lebanon and Syria. In fact it happened in 1990s and it is happening now. Armenia even doesn't deny it. So if we refer to The Independent then we should mention Lebanese fighting for Armenia.

Thirdly, France24, It is not independent cannel and proven propaganda machine of France. Even some analysis conducted in this cannel done by armenian people. Hence, referring to this channel as explaining your point is unacceptable as per Wikipedia rules. 188.227.214.227 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) According to WP:MBFC citing to France24 is not acceptable as it is not in the list of reliable sources. However, The Guardian and The Independent is on the list that can be trusted, but the statement inWP:MBFC says that source can be cited if the text or information covers non-specialist information. Considering that the information requires specific specialization on this type of investigations, The Independent can't not be cited.

The Guardian according to WP:MBFC can be cited but op-ends should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. The link you are referring is an opinoon and doesn't supported by board director of the The Guardian. The evidences are totally based on single person and her phone conversation with other unknown side. Hence, I believe we need to revisit this information below:

Prior to the resumption of hostilities, allegations emerged that hundreds of Syrian National Army members from the Hamza Division were transferred to Azerbaijan. - Reference is not consistent with WP:MBFC, hence can't be published as reliable information.

This was the first military casualty officially confirmed by the government. However, Armenian and Artsakh authorities have claimed 6,309 Azerbaijani soldiers and Syrian mercenaries were killed - Refers to armenian news agency hence, information shouldn't published because of its unreliability. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * France 24 is not listed in WP:MBFC, and The Guardian's is not an opinion piece. Did you actually clicked on the links? --Sataralynd (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk) Considering that France 24 is not in the list. this automatically makes it unreliable. Please carefully read what I wrote, I also explained why article in The Guardian is an opinion. If you will refer the right hand side of the article, you will see name of one journalist. Usually, when the article approved by board members all of their names appears on the list. The article is written on a context of Turkey strengthening its muscles and also does not include any proper investigation details referring only anonime conversations on the phone. Hence, it can't not be served as a fact. Hence, instead the article talking about Syrian Mercenaries fight for Azerbaijan it should underpin that those are claims that was raised by Macron and Security Chief of Russia, however despite the Azerbaijani side asking to provide an official report non of the side provided them yet. Mirhasanov (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC) About The Independent, again from WP:RS/P: "The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date." About SOHR, we have discussed before I guess, but for finding more resources about it; here and here. Also, there might be a possibility of WP:REFLOOP, although that might be between newspapers, without Wikipedia included. (To my opinion part) Because they include editorial stuffs as far as I see -if not, please correct me- and there's some doubts and there's missing points about the reliability, I don't think that it's safely usable for article, especially in a major article like this. I'd like to ping, who did statements on DRN and talked about Syrian mercenaries issue before. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * your comments about France24 are not acceptable. Most of the sources in the article are not listed in WP:MBFC Your reinterpretation of Guardian's article as an opinion piece just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not acceptable. You also didn't address the other pieces.--Sataralynd (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , (This comment is just for analysis) I found that about France24, which says that France24 is reliable but also (as far as I have seen from comments) some users mentioned that its editorial reliability is questionable. About The Guardian, WP:RS/P stated that: "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs."

Even though Azerbaijan does not report any casualty, open sources compiles a list of Azerbaijani soldiers killed in Karabakh
https://m.facebook.com/herbimedia/

204.197.181.160 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have discussed it before and we think that it's unreliable because of obvious reasons like WP:SOCIALMEDIA.--Ahmetlii (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Herbi Media is a Yerevan-based page that operates as an Armenian unit in its "information war." We've confirmed this before. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  07:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Herbi media is a Armenian based site, a user checked the History of the site in one of its Social Media accounts and figured that. Azerbaijan does not publish its military casulties, but funerals and notifications on relatives takes place. But this is regarding confirmed Killed soldiers in Azerbaijan, if there are killed soldiers from Azerbaijan but listed officially as missing they should not be present in that list, and the number could be higher. It depends on the source that his counting its own tally. Karabakh Records also reports the names of Azerbaijani soldiers killed by OSINT but was errased from the article because the primary source used was a RT that is currently Balcklisted.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Celebrity Section Addition - Please vote
A celebrity section was added and removed by someone without checking that there was already prior discussion about it. Tallying up prior votes, there were 3 votes to KEEP, 3 to DELETE and one additional person is OK to KEEP as long as it is proportional to superregional organizations. Could we get new voting going from anyone that didn't place their input before. If you had input before, you can post a statement, but make sure to state that you also voted before. At the end we can tally up vote in support or opposition. To summarize the section had discussed several celebrities that has posted social media statements opposing the war, some in support of Armenians and some in Support of Azeris, it Included Kardashians, Kanye West, Cardi B. Elton John, Mesut Ozil and others. Please post SUPPORT or OPPOSE. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  00:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Polling is allowed as long as there is discussion. We already had discussions and I encourage not just to post a vote, but post your reasons too.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that violates Wikipedia's rules. Please add. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No. This article is already very long, we don't need such additional trivia here. If someone decides to create a separate International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict then sure, it could go there, but the main conflict article is not the place for this.--Staberinde (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, that article was created, and then deleted for WP:QUOTEFARM. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Support to add a section, which includes supporters of both sides, with sources.--Sataralynd (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Support to add a section, which includes supporters of both sides, with sources, as per Armatura (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Article is too long already, there's no need to make it longer by adding a section about what online influencers think about a conflict. I agree with above. If there's going to be International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, you can add it there. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 12:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Tally so far with prior votes: Support 6, Oppose 5, plus one more person is in support if content not longer than political reactions. I am adding the section for now, unless we get at min 2 more oppose, then it can be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertwikiguy (talk • contribs) 08:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Adding celebrity endorsements is just trivializing a serious ongoing conflict. Unlike reactions from international bodies which may have real impact on the conflict and its resolution, celebrity statements are basically meaningless. Schazjmd  (talk)  00:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Casualties
https://www.thedailybeast.com/attack-drones-dominating-tanks-as-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-showcases-the-future-of-war

This Daily Beast article is giving Armenian casualties at around 1,000 soldiers dead, and 300-400 civilians killed (which happens to be much higher than what has been reported, and quite frankly, is horrible. Probably in line with Putin's estimate however). Here is the text from the article:

"One doctor in the bunker, who did not want to give his name due to restrictions on speaking to the media, told The Daily Beast that around 1,000 soldiers and 300 to 400 civilians had been declared dead at three hospitals in Artsakh, to his knowledge. These numbers point to far more casualties than the 900 officially reported by the Ministry of Defense in Artsakh, especially as some soldiers’ bodies are never retrieved from the front line."

I recommend putting this in the infobox and the casualties section (the standalone article included) of this article. How exactly you guys put this is up to you, especially since it differs a lot from the reported numbers. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC) I'd like to prefer to use it with another citation rather than just using it for not taking risk about whether it's a false news or not. --Ahmetlii (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not big difference regarding combatants killed. That currently stant at 974. The most interesting thing here is the 400 civilians killed. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be added in the article then, it's an RS. 300-400 Armenian civilians killed (per Daily Beast). How exactly you guys put it is up to you, this talk page is POV-pushing by both sides on steroids. What matters is that it gets mentioned in the article, infobox or otherwise. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article cites a single doctor. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  09:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And? It's still an RS. There should be somewhere in the article where this is a put. Attribution of course is key, as I have only found this number on the Daily Beast thus far. And the number 300-400 is also probable if you take into account Putin's estimate: the Azeris are conducting heavy bombardments of various towns, and the Armenians are concealing their true losses because they are getting walloped by the Azeris. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I got this from WP:RS/P: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."

Well, the bias refers to mostly domestic concerns in the US, as the Daily Beast slant is liberal, so I don't think it is referring to any partiality in this conflict per se (and there are no controversial statements made about living persons in the source) I doubt the doctor is spreading fake news, however, but I cannot be the judge of that. Anyhow, I agree with you, it would be much better if we can find another source that references this number, as it would be more reliable then. But I'm sure we can find a place for this still in the article, if not in the infobox then perhaps buried somewhere in the casualties section. 2601:85:C101:BA30:FDBB:852E:A1F:5DB3 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This source and Aljazeera put it at 1068. I will update the infobox.Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But perhaps you misunderstood because I wrote my request wrong, I suggest you see my formal edit request at the bottom of this talk page. The military casualties are being regularly updated, but the addition of the 300-400 civilian dead is what I was after. 2601:85:C101:BA30:ACF6:B4EC:DBBA:BFEC (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenian terrorist attack!
Any opinions on this? It's the " " absence for me haha. Eurofan88 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not ask contributors' (including my and your) subjective opinions because of WP:POV, sorry.--Ahmetlii (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The said link in the article is broken. Besides, it is a clear POV based on no evidence. How will they be able to organize terrorist attacks when no Armenian is allowed in Azerbaijan?--Sataralynd (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with your comment to that Wikipedia does not ask contributors' (including my and your) subjective opinions because of WP:POV. However, here you have made a change without providing a source, with this comment "now both of them as far as I see", which most would agree is not WP:NPOV, right? I hope you will henceforth follow your own advise--Sataralynd (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the source (which is for some reason broken now) quotes a statement from the State Security Service. Here's a different source., no, his edit wasn't fully unsourced. We've literally got this in the same section. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  02:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * his edit was unsourced. You added later the "source" here, bringing in a story that we determined by consensus a week ago was not grounds for restrictions on the Armenian side here and you participated in that discussion. You do realize that you're not helping yourself, right?--Sataralynd (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , end your accusative tone here. Putting some links without even knowing their content ain't going to make your point more agreeable. That discussion thread was about Azerbaijan, not Armenia. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  02:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , let me remind that I added that statement to the article on 15 October and the source got broken for some reasons. Going full with accusations again, your edits and behavior prompts us to just avoid you. WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  02:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again you obviously haven't read the thread (responding me in 5 minutes) including the original post which mentions the story you brought in today. Keep going--Sataralynd (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another nonargument by you. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020 (3)
Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, citing Azerbaijan’s current targeting of civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh, denial of past genocide against Armenians, and its official use of hate speech as factors leading to their assessment International Association of Genocide Scholars issued an open letter, considering the air raids conducted by the Azerbaijani military on Shushi Holy Savior Cathedral as a part of policy of the cultural genocide, blaming Azerbaijani government in systematic destruction of the Armenian historical heritage”.

Must be removed as the content is still subject of discussion and was added without consensus of all parties. Mirhasanov (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not what Rosguill suggested and is not what everyone in the discussion agreed to. Don't change the consensus to your advantage. The given sentence gives undue weight to GW's comments. It's enough if it's just "Genocide Watch has described the situation as a 'genocide emergency' for Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh". Also, I didn't know the IAGS's open letter discussion reached a consensus? I surely don't think it's over. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 07:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

More on the use of banned cluster munitions in civilian areas (Stepanakert)
The use of cluster munition by Azerbaijan against civilian areas of Nagorno Karabakh and in the capital Stepanakert has been well established by independent third party sources (see here and here). And yet, when checking whether the article adequately reflects the evidence, I actually found the opposite: in the Official Statements section, under Azerbaijan, the fifth paragraph starts with: Two days later, Azerbaijan stated that Armenia had deployed cluster munitions against cities.. Looking at the source, there is actually only a claim made by Hikmat Hajiyev, Ilham Aliyev's aide. This is a very serious accusation and we need more than an Azerbaijani source affiliated with the government to claim it. We actually need third party evidence similar to that of the above sources confirming Azerbaijan's use of cluster munitions. Therefore:

1) could we remove the above sentence from the article?

On the other hand, going back to my original point, the article needs to reflect the evidence that banned cluster munitions have been used by Azerbaijan against civilian areas in Nagorno Karabakh. Therefore:

2) in Official Statements section, under Armenia please modify the third paragraph sentence about cluster munitions to read: International third parties confirmed witnessing evidence of the use of banned cluster munition by Azerbaijan against civilian areas of Nagorno-Karabakh (see here and here)--Sataralynd (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is true. Human Rights Watch also reported that Azerbaijan has repeatedly used cluster munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/23/azerbaijan-cluster-munitions-used-nagorno-karabakh. Yet the current article only mentions that the "Armenian side claimed" without mentioning that authoritative international organizations have verified this.

193.196.11.188 (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree to #1, either remove or state it is an Azerbaijan claim and has not been verified by other sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree to add #2. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and If you agree with the above, could you please make the proposed changes? Thank you. --Sataralynd (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * could I bother you with making the above changes? Both {Re|johncdraper}} and I believe are busy these days. Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Could not find the sentence with Armenian official statement on cluster munition hence added one, supported by third party evidence you provided. Instead of deleting, modified Azerbaijani statement on cluster munition use to reflect the official's name who made the claim and the absence of third party evidence so far. Regards Armatura (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , i did make the change the other day but got reverted. Eurofan88 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both and . Please keep your eye on the reverts (I will do as well)--Sataralynd (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am grateful as well Armatura (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , and  seeking your support here as well to remove 1) above and other references to use of cluster munition by Armenians. It was changed but has been reverted. Third party evidence, like this one from HRW and this has been presented on its use by Azerbaijan, but not by Armenia. The HRW source talks that their repeated requests to access the Azerbaijan side to verify their claims of the use of cluster bombs by Armenians of NK have not been approved. Till when are we going to keep reference to cluster bombs used by Armenia when there is no third party evidence, and no authorization to obtain it? Thank you--Sataralynd (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

if you have an issue with the cluster bomb video, please refer to Wikimedia Commons because the issue you're raising is a licensing issue, not an issue pertaining to content. The video is relevant to the text. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with EtienneDolet, licensing issue and text issue two different things. At the moment, no reason to exclude the video from the article. As for Azerbaijani claims of Armenian usage of cluster bombs, as I said in another section, until 3rd party sources confirm it, its just a claim by Azerbaijan and it can be mentioned in the article, but needs to be properly and clearly attributed to its source and not presented as fact since they are one of the beligerents. Armenian denial, if there is one, should also be added. EkoGraf (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Territorial changes - NPOV?
Hi,

Under Territorial Changes (in the infobox) an Azeri claim - supported by an Azeri media source - is represented. Armenia has also released a map of the battlefield as of today, although as far as I know it can only be found on a YouTube video on an official Armenian government channel. I think both perspectives should be represented in this section--LOLCaatz (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you put a link? I couldn't find on search.--Ahmetlii (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpW4zzjfVYE - go to about 17:40. I'm mistaken, this is an Armenian media company's YouTube channel but it's still an official recording of someone in the MOD. For comparison the Azeri source is Trend News Agency which is an Azeri private media company.--LOLCaatz (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it says that "Azerbaijan reports"; doesn't push this claim in Wikipedia's name. And what Armenia claims officially is "tactical/partial retreat". That doesn't really specify which territories they lost, and until few days ago, they didn't even admitted lost of Zangilan or Jabrayil. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  07:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't it be "Azerbaijan states"? Or, we could add (per Azerbaijan) at the end. I always try to avoid using "reports" for government statements. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  07:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently an Azeri claim is represented, and it is stated as a claim. This is fine if there is only an Azeri claim but Armenia also has published claims as to territorial changes - so I think it would be better if both perspectives are stated, as their respective claims --LOLCaatz (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

LOLCaatz (talk) The map is an issue because neither Azeris nor Armenians agree with current map. Hence, this shouldn't be a big issue for now as it can be changed. Wikipedia article for 2020 War needs to be an informative not to serve propaganda machine of the war.Mirhasanov (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the map. I'm talking about the small section in infobox named "Territorial changes". --LOLCaatz (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

LOLCaatz (talk) your point is right but if we will put claims of the both country then it will be a sentence not a note. More details are mentioned in the article. As I mentioned war is on going and this article will change. Mirhasanov (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. The only thing is that the Armenian claim is an image which is difficult to represent in a note without breaking WP:SYN. It's pretty clear that Azerbaijan has taken a significant amount of territory in the south, both Azeri and Armenian state sources confirm this so this is of no doubt. Azeri sources have stated an exact amount of villages/settlements which is much easier to represent in a sentence. --LOLCaatz (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)




 * I appreciate it man. Let's wait for Armenia to release some statements re territorial control (and not a map) and then we might put the Armenian claim up there too. --LOLCaatz (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

parameters just sitting everywhere
Hey! I'm not sure why but every time I check this article there are just isolated refnames everywhere, when editing please try to avoid this. Thanks! <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 12:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was moving the original ref for the Prosecutor General's statement to a different section when you deleted it. See here. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright that's fine with me, just clean up when you're done! :) <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 13:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Follow the principle of neutrality.
Armenia claims that Syrian fighters fought on the Azerbaijani side. And this confirms in Wikipedia. Azerbaijan confirms that there are PKK members on the Armenian side, but wikipedia does not write it. You are biased. He confirms that the interrogated Armenian soldiers captured are members of the PKK. Fix this!--45.135.206.211 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/armenia-using-pkk-on-front-lines-azerbaijan-says https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/war-on-terror/armenia-transfers-ypgpkk-terrorists-to-occupied-area-to-train-militias-against-azerbaijan https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/armenia-using-pkk-on-front-lines-azerbaijan/2014567


 * Neutrality doesn't mean automatically taking for granted the claims of both sides. Turkish and Azeri claims about PKK involvement have, thus far at least, not been corroborated by reliable, third-party sources. The sources covering the Syrian fighters are reliable, neutral ones such as the BBC, The Guardian, and so on. In contrast, the two sources you mentioned are both heavily pro Turkish government, so there's an incentive there for spreading misinformation, etc. Eik Corell (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * But the news of SOHR, the news agency of Assad who killed a million people, that Syrian fighters went to Azerbaijan is accepted as a source?

The Azerbaijani government is saying the claim, so I have to report on the BBC and The Guardian? The BBC and The Guardian investigative commission or news agency? How correct is it that you accept these resources as 100% neutral--45.135.206.211 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are three different sources confirming evidence of Syrian fighters involvement on the Azerbaijani side: France24, The Independent, and Guardian. These sources are much more reliable than the Armenian or Azerbaijani MoDs. I am yet to see the PKK fighters claim being reported on any such outlet, let alone for evidence to be provided--Sataralynd (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not warriors, but PKK terrorists. Or are you going to claim that it is not a terrorist organization? --45.135.206.220 (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are sources that says PKK fight for Armenia: EU Political Report is an independent Brussels based news portal delivering authoritative comment on the latest economic and political developments in Europe for key EU decision makers and opinion formers.

https://www.eupoliticalreport.eu/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardise-european-security/

is a Brussels based European multimedia news platform, providing online news and video comment on EU and world affairs in all EU official languages. https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/09/23/pkks-involvement-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-would-jeopardize-european-security/

The Jamestown Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan organization supported by tax-deductible contributions from corporations, foundations and individuals. https://jamestown.org/program/reviving-a-forgotten-threat-the-pkk-in-nagorno-karabakh/

I think this should be enough independent sources. I can enlist dosens. 188.227.214.227 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need to list dozens, just one. One that actually presents evidence (e.g. videos of fighters geolocated to NK Armenian zone) of the involvement of PKK forces on the Armenian side of the conflict. If you have actually read the sources you provided, you will see that one is from 2007, the other is just reporting what Azerbaijan is claiming and the third is a reprint. Again, just one source like this [|this] one and I'll be happy to take the PKK topic seriously--Sataralynd (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sataralynd (talk Please stop acting like administrator of the page. This is discussion page and no one looking for your permission or serious manner to start the conversation. Hence, instead of attacking users make sure that you clearly reflect your view. Provided first two articles is enough to start the discussion, I am not favour on third one as it written by Azeri author. Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't refer to newspapers to prove the content. You all the time refer to France24, which deemed to be bias. If we refer to France24 then we should refer to AlJazeera and TRT World. The "facts" you are referring about Syrian fighters is claim [] not proved yet, similar to PKK fighters in Karabakh is also claim. So, if we are referring to claims not to facts to build up the article then both sides must be reflected. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep on topic. I have asked for sources providing evidence not just opinions. The two pieces you are talking about are just one piece (it is a reprint - have you opened the link?), and they are talking about "reports". Don't expect any claim to be taken seriously without evidence like geolocated videos. The Aljazeera piece you cite doesn't demonstrate evidence. Address these sources. And this one just off the press. It is not only from France24 which is not listed as unreliable. You cannot refer to TRT because 1) Turkey is involved in the conflict 2) it is considered unreliable as per WP--Sataralynd (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Sataralynd, could you show us the Syrian fighters in the Azerbaijani army by presenting the geographically located video evidence you mentioned? --45.135.206.249 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Check these four sources--Sataralynd (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2020
https://www.thedailybeast.com/attack-drones-dominating-tanks-as-armenia-azerbaijan-conflict-showcases-the-future-of-war

This Daily Beast article is giving Armenian casualties at around 1,000 soldiers dead, and 300-400 civilians killed as of October 26 (which happens to be much higher than what has been reported, but probably in line with Putin's estimate however). I am requesting the addition of the civilian number, not the military. Here is the text from the article:

"One doctor in the bunker, who did not want to give his name due to restrictions on speaking to the media, told The Daily Beast that around 1,000 soldiers and 300 to 400 civilians had been declared dead at three hospitals in Artsakh, to his knowledge. These numbers point to far more casualties than the 900 officially reported by the Ministry of Defense in Artsakh, especially as some soldiers’ bodies are never retrieved from the front line."

I recommend putting this in the infobox and/or the casualties section of this article. How exactly you guys put this is up to you, I'm sure you'll argue over the specifics, especially since it differs a lot from the reported numbers, but it is an RS and worthy of mention.

I am making this specific edit request because my earlier "Armenian casualties" talk section went stale. The Daily Beast is an RS in relation to this regional conflict. To use my own text in the previous section: "Well, the bias refers to mostly domestic concerns in the US, as the Daily Beast slant is liberal, so I don't think it is referring to any partiality in this conflict per se (and there are no controversial statements made about living persons in the source)".

If put in the infobox, I suggest adding: per Daily Beast as of October 26. If put in the casualties section, add the same thing. Once again, this request is for the addition of the 300-400 civilian dead number, not the military number. And again, this can be put in either the infobox or the casualties section. 2601:85:C101:BA30:ACF6:B4EC:DBBA:BFEC (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:BA30:ACF6:B4EC:DBBA:BFEC (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done it isn't Daily Beast's estimate. Just an Armenian doctor, that ain't reliable. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Are Azeri doctors unreliable when they talk about Azeri casualties? No, that would be absurd, unless someone gave an RS that claims that. But that hasn't happened, and Azeri doctors and officials are considered reliable. So why shouldn't an Armenian doctor be reliable too? The Armenians have an incentive to lie to cover their losses, so I doubt that this doctor is giving "pro-Armenian" propaganda, if that is what you are afraid of. The Armenians are the same as the Azeris and I see no reason to claim that one side is reliable and the other is unreliable. So my request still stands. Please provide RS if you want to say that the Armenian doctor is unreliable, because your personal opinion is irrelevant in this case. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9CB9:37C9:7CC9:B864 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox settlements
, please say me what clutter do you see on the infobox about the settlements? These are important places, and has to be showed. Plus "the border between the disputed area with Iran" is not a "neutral wording", this area is not disputed, nor the border. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is disputed, between the Artsakh and Azerbaijan. Both claim to own that land, therefore it is disputed. --LOLCaatz (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

LOLCaatz (talk) there is no side called Artsakh. The conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. De facto Artsakh is proxy regime managed by Armenia. Mirhasanov (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Artsakh is technically a self-declared state which is separate from Armenia which makes the territory disputed between Azerbaijan and Artsakh. In other words Azerbaijan views it as Azeri territory and Artsakh views it as part of its territory - is this not what a dispute is? Even though in practice Artsakh is pretty much treated by the Armenian government as part of Armenia. --LOLCaatz (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not here to discuss and prove you that you are wrong as it is not platforma for it. However, I would again suggest you at least educate yourself and collaborate wikipedia instead making people busy with your war propaganda knowledge. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking sides - I don't have any links to either Armenia or Azerbaijan so don't accuse me of propaganda. But it seems pretty clear to me that an unrecognized country controlling a piece of territory that another country also claims as part of their own is a dispute. I can quote a dictionary on the meaning of dispute if you want?--LOLCaatz (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please keep infoboxes and ledes simple and concise. You can add more detail in the body of the article, place a list or table of villages that are controlled (but I recommend a third-party, reliable source). Also, yes, the whole area is disputed. Whether it's de facto or de jure, this territory is severely disputed (which is why there is a violent armed conflict in the first place). This should be common sense.--WMrapids (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * WMrapids (talk) From your comment, I understood that you have very limited knowledge about the conflict. Please read UN resolution 822,853, 874,884 which will be a good start, then you can dig in historical aspects of this conflict in order to come up with final conclusion.

822 - Calls for the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbajar district and other recently occupied areas of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

853- Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities; Calls on the withdrawal of the occupying forces from the district of Agdam and other recently occupied areas of the Republic of Azerbaijan and reaffirms UN Resolution 822. Endorses the continuing efforts by the Minsk Group of the CSCE to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

874 - Calls upon the parties concerned to make effective and permanent the ceasefire established as a result of the direct contacts undertaken with the assistance of the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the CSCE Minsk Group; welcomes and commends to the parties the "Adjusted timetable of urgent steps to implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993)" set out on 28 Sept. 1993 at the meeting of the CSCE Minsk Group and calls on the parties to accept it; calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's "Adjusted timetable", including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation; calls also for an early convening of the CSCE Minsk Conference for the purpose of arriving at a negotiated settlement to the conflict; requests the Secretary-General to send a representative to attend the CSCE Minsk Conference and to provide assistance for the substantive negotiations that will follow the opening of the Conference; calls on all parties to refrain from violations of international humanitarian law and renews its call in resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in all areas affected by the conflict; requests the Secretary-General and relevant international agencies to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the affected civilian population and to assist refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes in security and dignity.

884- Condemns the recent violations of the ceasefire established between the parties; calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993), and to ensure that the forces involved are not provided with the means to extend their military campaign further; demands from the parties concerned the immediate cessation of armed hostilities, the unilateral withdrawal of occupying forces from the Zangelan district and the city of Goradiz, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic in accordance with the "Adjusted timetable of urgent steps to implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993)" (S/26522, appendix) as amended by the CSCE Minsk Group meeting in Vienna of 2 to 8 Nov. 1993; strongly urges the parties concerned to resume promptly and to make effective and permanent the ceasefire established as a result of the direct contacts undertaken with the assistance of the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the CSCE Minsk Group; urges again all States in the region to refrain from any hostile acts and from any interference or intervention, which would lead to the widening of the conflict and undermine peace and security in the region; requests the Secretary-General and relevant international agencies to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the affected civilian population. Mirhasanov (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't insult my knowledge on the conflict. I am aware of the UN resolutions however please view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea which is also listed on the page as "disputed" and is in a similar situation, where the territory is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine but is controlled and "annexed" by Russia. The historical basis of the conflict is extremely complex but since both sides have legitimate historical reasons to claim that territory, what is relevant in the present day is that whoever manages to control it or maintain control of it will probably be able to keep it.--LOLCaatz (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not not place the Azerbaijan-Iran border link in the infobox until there is a consensus. The whole point of this article is about the dispute of this area. Describing it to readers as explicitly Armenia's, Azerbaijan's or whoever's border with Iran is not NPOV.--WMrapids (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over Nagorno-Karabakh, not the Azerbaijan-Iran border, those are internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan by UN, therefore Azerbaijan restored its border with Iran. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 11:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These are internationally recognised borders, what dispute are you talking about? Khodaafarin Dam was made in agreement with Iran and Azerbaijani governments, not with Armenia or someone else, although it was under Armenian occupation., what do you think? Beshogur (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is still an active armed dispute. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan, but what do we use on Wikipedia? If it is regarding a direct conflict of an area, it should be left with neutral wording.--WMrapids (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan, really? Dispute happens between two countries, not a self declared states. See UN res 62/243: 1. Reaffirms continued respect and support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders; 2. Demands the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Beshogur (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that sometimes what the UN says is moot. Taiwan is plainly described as a country in the article. If China were to make military advances and take territory that was in Taiwan, would we automatically describe this as "restoration of China"? This would be highly disputed, as is the same case here. This isn't merely rhetoric anymore; it's armed conflict and death. There are people killing and dying over land, so it is painfully obvious that the area is disputed...--WMrapids (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are dramatising everything. This is not a forum. Comparing self declared state to Taiwan is already not a valid argument. Beshogur (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a very weird comparison you're making. Taiwan is recognised by several countries. Artsakh is recognised by zero. The dispute is over Nagorno-Karabakh, anything other than that is considered "occupied" territories by international law and it's one of the first conditions of the basic principles that those lands (including the whole AZ-IR border) should be given back to Azerbaijan. Make correct comparisons. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 11:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't object, I'm re-adding it. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 12:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , setting aside the issues of neutrality that seem to be motivating this discussion, I'm not really sure I see how including "Azerbaijan-Iran border" is helpful to readers. I think that listing the location as Nagorno-Karabakh is more easily understood. While I could see a quibble regarding whether regions previously controlled by Artsakh outside of the former NKAO are really Nagorno-Karabakh, that could be resolved by saying "Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding disputed areas". signed,Rosguill talk 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , why not? That's an important development. Beshogur (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , my apologies, I mistakenly thought we were discussing the Location parameter and not the territorial changes parameter. I think that the current wording of the disputed area's border with Iran is adequate for that part, although I stand by my perspective regarding the former. signed,Rosguill talk 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not disputed under international law though. The disputed area is Nagorno-Karabakh, which has no border with Iran. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbia
Isn't Serbia an army suplier for both sides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.156.45 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the infobox covers the countries that supplied weapons to a party during the conflict. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Serbia is arm support for Armenia, president of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić said that Serbia will have greater relations with Armenia in future. Лука Раичевић (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Armenians converted ‘Aghdam Jamia Mosque’ into Pigsty in Occupied Karabakh
Armenians intentionally began to keep pigs in the Agdam mosque, turning religious monuments into an object for insults. The current situation of the Juma mosque confirms the violation by the Armenians of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
 * Oppose: nothing to do with the present conflict--Sataralynd (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: leaving the unsupported claim of "Armenians intentionally keeping pigs in a mosque" aside, how does the mosque apply to the current conflict? Armatura (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX Cyberwarfare?
Hey ! Thank you for your edit here. But I've got some doubts that it is included in the correct section. Cyber warfare would include hacking and cyber attacks on a gov's behalf. Not some social media users sending emails in protest. This section seems more fitting for it though. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this was an online thing, I felt this is the best place for it. However, there is supposed to be a protest going on in front of SpaceX today, if SpaceX doesn't agree to stop, so perhaps lets wait till tomorrow and move it there along with the info on the protest once it makes it to the news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

POV tag
Just a procedural note: as long as neutrality tag is at the article's top and the article is on the front page, please link to a specific talk thread for accessibility so we can resolve the dispute ASAP and get rid of it. Brandmeistertalk  22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Beshogur (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I see POV issues on this page on more of a section level than a whole-page level. --Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I see different POVs in different places. --Calthinus (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Official confession: existing map should be updated
https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1033218/

Official confession: existing map should be updated Republic of Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan: Shushi, today our victory is conditioned by the protection of Shushi. The enemy is just a few kilometers from here, maximum 5 kilometers. --45.135.206.249 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan' and 'Syrian Militants' under supporters of Azerbaijan
Add 'Pakistan' and 'Syrian Militants' under supporters of Azerbaijan. Hambvart (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Ahmetlii (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are the media reports about Syrian Fighters

Here are the media's report about Pakistan's Army
 * Direct quote from the 2 sources you provided about Pakistan army:
 * From Arabnews.pk: "As ties between Islamabad and Baku are strong, some motivated sources even tried to float false propaganda that Pakistani forces were fighting side by side with Azerbaijani forces against the Armenian military. This was debunked by the Foreign Office as "speculative and baseless""
 * From Eurasian Times: "Last week, Pakistani Foreign Ministry refuted Indian media reports that Pakistan is fighting alongside Azerbaijani forces against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh and termed the reports “irresponsible, speculative, and baseless.“". This is the only mention of a Pakistan army in that page by the way. So, no confirmation. — <b style="color:#D4AF37">Curious</b><b style="color:#D4AF37">Golden</b> (talk·contrib) </b> 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)